SolidWorks Defense
I started writing this blog post as a “pretend Matt Lombard worked for SolidWorks” kind of post, but it got frighteningly surreal very quickly, and I couldn’t keep writing in that voice any longer. So I’ll just tell you the things that really are good about SolidWorks position in the current CAD market. It’s so easy to overlook the fact that there are actually some bright spots.
Responding to Synch Tech
The first thing is that SolidWorks has been working on a response to Synchronous Technology for some time. This gets overshadowed mainly because SolidWorks seems to be downplaying it. Maybe they downplay it because talking it up would be essentially selling ST over SW — admitting SW as it was had some defficiency while they still had a couple of years left to sell it. To me, SW V6 has 4 main structural changes:
- enables cloud distribution
- incorporates “Declarative Modeling” (direct edit)
- uses a database instead of operating system controlled files
- it’s a complete rewrite of the code
I’m sure there is more to it than this, but these are the items that are important to me about it.
At SolidWorks World 2010, Jeff Ray had a choice – he could have mentioned any or all of these items. But he chose to stress the cloud. I’ve already mentioned why I think direct edit wasn’t stressed. The database bit is just not something end users would get excited about either, and the rewrite of the code could lead to a lot of fear. In fact, #1, #3, and #4 are IT issues, and #1 benefits the supplier more than anyone. #2 is the only change that really interests CAD users. That’s the idea they should have lead with, but even with it being the best of the 4, most of the SolidWorks user base is not at this point really amped up about direct edit. Still, it is the one thing here to be excited about. Of course it matters how they implement it, and in practice it could be anywhere from brilliant to disaster, but it does at least have very positive potential.
So the bright spot here is that SW might have some sort of equivalent to ST. Down the road a couple of years.
#4: Complete Rewrite
While we are pondering contradictions, or advantages that could easily turn into disadvantages, you can’t overlook the fact that the 15+ year old SolidWorks code is getting completely rewritten. We are already pretty certain that this is going to mean another complete rewrite of the interface to fit more into the Catia line of software. Guys like me who obsess about old bugs should be happy, because all of those old bugs will go away. Of course they will be replaced by even more new bugs, but that’s just conjecture at this point. Again, a complete rewrite could be either brilliant or a disaster. I just hope the company gets interested in CAD again before they finish writing the software.
Interoperability
Unless Dassault goes out of their way to sabotage it, which is not out of the question, the Declarative Modeling bit (direct edit) should translate into fewer problems with interoperability, both between disparate software vendors and even between successive releases of a single software package. This is probably the most underreported benefit of direct edit. If you have to move files from SW 2015 to SW 2014, you shouldn’t be locked out the way you are today. This is the one really pro-customer result of the changes.
Momentum
Momentum is composed of two components: velocity and mass. SolidWorks has not started losing a lot of customers as far as I know. So they still have that mass part of the equation. If you choose a CAD product based on their momentum, you might still choose SW. However, at PLM World, I did see a list of a lot of big automotive deals where Dassault lost to Siemens. If part of SolidWorks moving forward is going to be a closer relationship with Catia, that relationship could become more liability than asset.
Owning the Kernel
It can only be a good thing to own the kernel. Parasolid has been a fantastic fit for SolidWorks. I’m less enthusiastic about Dcubed because I get the feeling that’s where all of the mate and sketch relation flipping have come from. But still, if you have to use a kernel and you wind up paying a competitor for it, that’s not good. Using one you already own must be better. Sure Parasolid is a great kernel, driving software as powerful as NX, but Catia is no slouch when it comes to surfacing, so Catia’s kernel has got to be powerful. On the other hand, who is to say that Catia’s kernel is more powerful than Parasolid, or that the way the Catia kernel will be implemented in SW will be better than the implementation of Parasolid. There’s definite potential. And the lame excuses about SW <=> Catia interoperability had better come to an end.
Anyway, I just thought there were some valid arguments that weren’t being heard. If SW can’t step up and say something on their own behalf about the potential good news about gutting one of the most popular CAD packages out there, I guess I’ll just have to do it.